OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/23337/eComStation_2_0_Released
Exploring the Future of Computingen-usCopyright 2001-2015, David Adamsadam+nospam@osnews.comSun, 02 Aug 2015 21:34:41 GMThttp://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gifOSNews.comhttp://www.osnews.com
This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425906
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425906If it wasn't so darn expensive. The darn thing costs $150 for the "home" version and $260 for the "business" edition. Few people are going to pay that. While somebody might be willing to pay $50 or so to take an OS/2 nostalgia trip, I can't think of anyone who would pay triple that for the privilege.Fri, 21 May 2010 12:58:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (madcrow)CommentsRE: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425915
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425915I was reading your first sentence and $49.99 popped into my head as I was reading. $150 is too much for something I probably will not use in the long term but would like to play with.Edited 2010-05-21 13:30 UTCFri, 21 May 2010 13:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Earl Colby pottinger)CommentsHmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425918
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425918I think I'm just missing the "awesome" in this thing.

149$ for "home and student"? Are they kidding? What can this 1990s time machine do for a "home and student" user, that Linux can't do for free? Or better yet, Windows 7 that costs around the same amount?Fri, 21 May 2010 13:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Ultimatebadass)CommentsRE: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425923
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425923Yes, I have to agree. I would actually only have to pay the upgrade fee as I have bought each of the previous versions. But, frankly, it's still too much considering that I really only have it around in a VM for nostalgic reasons. None of my clients now use OS/2, so I have no need to for an eCS test bed any longer (I do database and web app work mostly).

Of course, if your main OS is eCS, then I suspect that the upgrade fee is actually rather good value for money. A lot of work has gone into this release, and despite the fact that the OS is perhaps neither the prettiest nor that very well known, it does serve a market and does so extremely well (rock stable, lots of up to date software, especially open source but also commercial stuff).

So, although I won't be buying it (unless they drop the price or do a promo), I do wish both the development team and the OS itself all the best.

Well, people paying for eComStation are not only "for the nostalgia trip". People paying for it are really using it and need support for newer hardware platform.

If you want a nostalgia trip buy Warp 4 on ebay and install it on Windows Virtual PC.Fri, 21 May 2010 14:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (martini)CommentsRE[2]: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425938
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425938

I was reading your first sentence and $49.99 popped into my head as I was reading. $150 is too much for something I probably will not use in the long term but would like to play with.

And even then you'll be in for a rough ride. It is a 90'ies operating system with driver updates to bring it into the 21st century crouching on its knees. I don't want to be a troll, but even in the 2000-2001 timeframe when I played with it, it was quite instable, ugly, and outdated. The competition for this system was Windows 95, and those days are long gone.Fri, 21 May 2010 14:50:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (danieldk)Commentsnext up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425939
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425939Seriously?

This is less than worthless, and they want to charge $150 for it? Retarded.

Plus, they echo typical anti-MS FUD for reasons to buy:

"As a result you don't need to purchase an expensive anti virus program. (An anti virus program is included though.)"

Yah, Security Essentials and Avira are really expensive.Fri, 21 May 2010 14:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fanboi_fanboi)CommentsComment by AnythingButVistahttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425941
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425941Until the dream of an open source OS/2 becomes true, or a better commercial release from IBM comes out, I guess this will work. I'll be buying my copy of eCS Home & Student.Fri, 21 May 2010 15:01:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (AnythingButVista)CommentsRE: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425942
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425942

Seriously?

This is less than worthless, and they want to charge $150 for it? Retarded.

Yes, seriously. For those not using eCS, it's almost certainly not worth it. For those who are using it though, they need ongoing development of drivers, fixes, improved functionality etc.

Remember that OS/2 and eCS are used in many corporate environments, where stability and risk-mitigation are higher priorities than aesthetics or being able to run the latest blockbuster game.

Plus, they echo typical anti-MS FUD for reasons to buy:

"As a result you don't need to purchase an expensive anti virus program. (An anti virus program is included though.)"

Yah, Security Essentials and Avira are really expensive.

A very fair point. Although, many AV programs have to be bought if used in a commercial/coprporate environment, or at least the support is paid for. I suspect that this is how they would justify the claim, but yes, it is rather disingenuous.Fri, 21 May 2010 15:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Sparrowhawk)CommentsRE: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425943
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425943Probably the expect to sell just a few copies for home/student use, so I figure they might as well charge as much as they can in order to maximize revenue.

Shortsighted as it may be, there is little future in the OS2 platform, so they might as well milk their customers for as long as you can before they finally jump ship.Fri, 21 May 2010 15:11:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (tylerdurden)CommentsRE: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425945
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425945My guess is that most 'people' would have no interest in eComStation, most purchasers will be banks and other corporations that have a large installed base of OS/2 computers. So, I suppose the pricing is rather cheap, considering that corporations don't seem to care about how much they spend (look at xeon pricing).

BTW, does anyone have any idea if the terminals installed at Lowe's, HomeDepot or Barnes and Noble are OS/2 systems??? From looking at them, they sure look that way.Fri, 21 May 2010 15:24:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (MacMan)CommentsComment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425949
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425949What on earth is with the hate on the price? $150 for _5_ computers!? Excellent price. You can't buy 5 Windows home retail licences for that! And $259 for unlimited installs!? That's _insanely_ good value.

I think people are complaining because they have no serious intention to actually _use_ the OS. These prices are amazingly good.Fri, 21 May 2010 15:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kroc)CommentsRE: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425951
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425951Hi,
you are right. There is a lot it can't do, even at its high price. The thing is, people still think eCS WILL or MUST HAVE TO compete with Windows [whatever], Linux flavours or Mac... but that's simply not true. Other than that, nobody forces you to buy it.

While its UI will never be as pretty as Win/Mac, nor its core will ever be as "good" or "open" as with Linux, it's being "the thing in between" that I like. Windows is hiding its ugly internals behind polished interfaces and Linux will (forever) do exactly what you want it to do only if you quit its GUI and type a 300+ chars commandline by heart in a shell.

True, the kernel is 32bit "only" and will perhaps never grow to anything beyond that unless rewritten from scratch (good luck here...) and in some time, hardware will cease to support 32bit architecture. Who cares? I'll ride the pony til it dies. That day come, can still decide which OS to go with... Haiku? Why not.

Until then, I gladly pay 149 bucks to have an OS that has no exposure to any virus threat and (especially important for Germany) no way of being able to incorporate a government backdoor spyware. I can surf the web, do emails and use word processing and spreadsheets. That's it. For entertainment, I have a TV, a Wii, a smartphone and -yes- a Windblows machine here (which runs Ubuntu in a VM in case I need to bring some work home...)

Cheers,
ThomasFri, 21 May 2010 15:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (warpcafe)CommentsRE[2]: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425954
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425954So? Apple expects that this year alone about 8 million people pay up to $900 for "something they probably will not use in the long term but would like to play with."

:-PFri, 21 May 2010 15:57:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (boblowski)CommentsRE: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425955
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425955$150 for 5 installs would be great if I intended on installing it on 5 machines. Otherwise it just feels like I'm paying for something that I will never use. It's like trying to buy a can of coke and being told that you need to buy a whole 12-pack.

It would also help if they had an updated demo CD too so I could judge whether it is something I would be interested in. Without that, I can't see taking a $150 plunge.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:05:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (chandler)CommentsRE: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425956
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425956Hi,

well - did you ever ask yourself why there is a *need* to install a (free) antivirus, a (free) antispyware and a (free) personal firewall in Windows?

Next, "retarded" is not very kind - and I'm not talking about political (or ethical) correctness here. It is an insult of those who are mentally disorderd or are suffering from serious illness. So far for your limited "horizon" when it comes to interacting with a society. Are you from the US?

Using the R-Word along with accusing others to do "anti-MS FUD" turns your very own viewpoint pretty much useless since you put yourself in a bad light. I might still think that the core truth behind this simply is that YOU are becoming worried about YOUR OS of choice when it comes to security.

It is true that eCS is not suitable for everyone.
However, I start to believe that it's not a real disadvantage...

You're better off paying a psychiatrist $150 so he can help you with your denial issues.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:26:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface)CommentsComment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425963
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425963I've built up a new rig purely for this. Slightly older hardware, Asus M3A79, Phenom II 550 X2, Asus 4350, 2Gb Ram, 250GB Sata and DVDRW. The Silver RC7 release flies on this as it should do really given the hardware improvements since the underlying kernel was released.
Ref the cost: The target audience will generally already have a copy of ECS 1.2 or Warp 3 or 4 or and have bought into the subscription pack so the upgrade cost will be neglible. The thing about OS/2 is that you set it up once correctly and then just let it work and it will continue working until the hardware dies, its true price is the TCO over 5 or more years and it works out very competitive cost wise that way.
Ref the UI: For sure its icons do not look as pretty as Mac or Win 7 or KDE but once you sampled the underlying strength of the Workplace Shell Objects and incorporated it into your workflow then you have to wonder what the other GUI developers have been doing for the last 10 - 15 years ;-)
S!Fri, 21 May 2010 16:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (robbiec)CommentsRE[2]: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425964
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425964This high price is for those companies that have a OS/2 solution, and must upgrade. They are the only one that are willing to pay. OS/2 will never get any new users, and they know it. They are not after new users. It is better to milk the old cow as much as possible. It they really wanted to increase the user base, they would have a much reasonable and lower price. But they know they can not compete with the open sourced OSes.

32bit kernel? That is not... a good choice for an OS, too limited. Even today, people can not use 32bit Windows to its full extent, more and more need the power and memory freedom from 64bit. If you really need stability and performance and no practical limitations, choose a real Unix, not Linux.

BTW, it is funny that OS/2 has GUI tech from Amiga, whereas Amiga got REXX scripting language in return, as Arexx.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425967
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425967Not a fair comparison because it doesn't offer near the functionality of Windows or a Linux distro.

This is more like an overpriced collector's edition that they are selling to the remaining fans.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:44:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface)CommentsRE[2]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425968
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425968

This is more like an overpriced collector's edition that they are selling to the remaining fans.

You say that like it's a bad thing.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:45:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsRE: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425969
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425969

workflow then you have to wonder what the other GUI developers have been doing for the last 10 - 15 years ;-)
S!

What kind of workflow would that be? Using OpenOffice?

Even if you only use it for surfing it's only a matter of time before you run into some plug-in issue.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface)CommentsRE[3]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425970
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425970I do because as a collector's edition it is still overpriced. They should have included some swag.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface)CommentsRE[4]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425972
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425972

I do because as a collector's edition it is still overpriced. They should have included some swag.

That's what you think.

That's the beauty if pricing: it doesn't matter what you think. I'm sure this price is the result of a) development costs and b) IBM licensing costs c) profit. They would've gone lower if they could.Fri, 21 May 2010 16:55:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda)CommentsComment by Espenhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425976
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425976Well it's like 12 packs of cigarettes...
So I will probley buy it. And I can upgrade my 1.2 So it's not that bad.

EspenFri, 21 May 2010 17:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Espen)CommentsRE[5]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425983
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425983I am quite certain the "swag" comment was in key of jest...Fri, 21 May 2010 17:38:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (tylerdurden)CommentsRE: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425985
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425985Personally I think the new low price is great. I really do like eComStation and 2.0 is a stellar release. It has just enough modern software to work as a good laptop OS, and very lower hardware requirements. I can also play all my old DOS games when i am feeling extra nostalgic (yes i can do that in XP for teh most part, and windows 7 or linux using DOS Box, but i digress).

eCom has open office 3.1 as well as fire fox and a bunch of other stuff (QT is a big thing for me as thats what i develop most in these days). If you get some extra cash you should give it a buy. I don't mind the price as i think of it as supporting a company that's working hard to bring OS/2 up to modern day standards.Fri, 21 May 2010 18:02:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (poundsmack)CommentsRE: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425987
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425987

If it wasn't so darn expensive. The darn thing costs $150 for the "home" version and $260 for the "business" edition. Few people are going to pay that. While somebody might be willing to pay $50 or so to take an OS/2 nostalgia trip, I can't think of anyone who would pay triple that for the privilege.

If they install it on 5 computers (as they are allowed to), then they are only spending $30 (per PC) for it.

And $250 for an unlimited installation license is uber-cheap.Edited 2010-05-21 18:25 UTCFri, 21 May 2010 18:21:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (phoenix)CommentsPlease, be fair and open.http://www.osnews.com/thread?425988
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425988I don't have a need for this OS so I won't buy it. I'm complaining about my Vista being so painfully slow but I won't upgrade it to Windows 7. Why? Because I know, without having ever tried it that 7 is not fast enough to make me content for the price I'd pay the upgrade, would it be 50 euros. I have absolutely no problem paying (less than half that amount per year) for Yahoo Mail Plus or Antivir Premium: they do what I want them to do extremely well. Has anyone ever tried the secondary addresses system from Yahoo? Nothing short of brilliant! I would gladly pay twice the price for that single feature.

However, I can easily understand that OSes like eCS do exist and I understand the price. Correct me if i'm wrong but weren't box versions of previous Windows's in the same prices? MS Office looked that expensive, if not more, in my student eyes years ago. So... what's the problem with the price? There are plenty of software products dedicated to one task that cost more (ever heard of AutoCAD or Photoshop?).

I also understand the "ugliness" of it. Is the target market for eCS composed of people who care about the looks? If we're not certain to answer "yes", then any debate about the looks is futile. Even for some of us techies, it isn't: the first I did was to disable Aero. Who needs that when Dexpot is there? Vista: good looks but so dog slow it's a pain to live with.

Mac OS X is by far the most polished member of the Macwinilux (as coined by Thom) gang in all aspects I can think of but I'm not sure Mac users with high resolution screens wouldn't trade some of that hot-sexy-busty-blue-eyed-blonde-chick (sorry girls) looks for the dumb simple possibility to change the size of the system font. I would; and I tried three days ago to change that size only to find out it's not possible! By the way, I would also trade some of it for the possibility to lock icons in the dock and I don't enumerate all the things I've tried to change and couldn't. Mac OS X: wild sexy chick but so stubborn.

Anyone wonders why mainstream OSes need so many gigs of disk space? Remember August 2009: reclaim 7 GB when upgrading from 10.5 to Snow Leopard? As a matter of fact, my system disk is 50 GB and it contains only the original Vista and 263MB in C:/ProgramData. All programs I installed myself and users folders and data are on a separate logical unit. Yet the available disk space is only 13.1 GB. What on earth does Windows need all that space for? The drivers? I would eagerly trade the "polished" aspect of Vista for less bloatware; Microsoft should have done the world a favor and bought/included useful apps like Dexpot, FreeCommander, RocketDock and ClipDiary. How much space do Snow Leopard and Linux distributions use? Wouldn't be surprised if the answer is 20+ GB. Macwinilux: uselessly big.

Linux? warpcafe put it better than I can:

Linux will (forever) do exactly what you want it to do only if you quit its GUI and type a 300+ chars commandline by heart in a shell.

My point with this long comment is that: 1- there is space for all actors in the OS world (including and especially the niches ones because they are the living proofs we haven't abandoned hopes for a better experience) even if some obviously don't fit our personal requirements, and 2- we can't have all features, speed, stability, looks, interoperability, security, user experience, intuitiveness, graded "configurability", you pick your favorites, at once. Or the "perfect OS" would have already existed and we wouldn't be commenting this article.Fri, 21 May 2010 18:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (vodoomoth)CommentsRE[2]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?425996
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425996Boo-hoo, he used the word "retarded" as a synonym for "stupid." How awful. Good thing many of the actual retards, er, I mean "slow" people out there are incapable of doing much (if anything) on a computer, let alone have any idea what an operating system is, or even some random site called "OSNews." Hhmm, actually that applies to the vast majority of people in general, so it kind of evens out. I can't imagine any such people getting offended by something they'll never see. And I seriously doubt the original poster chose the word specifically to offend someone. The group of people most likely to lurk here are more technical, and I seriously doubt any of them will have anything to be offended by.Edited 2010-05-21 19:18 UTCFri, 21 May 2010 19:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (UltraZelda64)CommentsRE[2]: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?425999
http://www.osnews.com/thread?425999Xeon pricing? Like intel xeon processors? For servers? They really aren't that bad and have the best ( for my applications) price/performance ratio.Fri, 21 May 2010 20:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul)CommentsRE[2]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426001
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426001You could say the same thing about the iPad!Fri, 21 May 2010 20:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (chandler)CommentsRE[3]: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426003
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426003

32bit kernel? That is not... a good choice for an OS, too limited. Even today, people can not use 32bit Windows to its full extent, more and more need the power and memory freedom from 64bit. If you really need stability and performance and no practical limitations, choose a real Unix, not Linux.

That's what I was saying in my previous comment: we've just settled for what's been given to us as some sort of OS gospel dyed with consumerism. Does anyone recall what was the standard laptop RAM size in 2000? I'm really interested into knowing. I have memories of my father using a word processor on an Amstrad CPC6128 in the late 80s. In 2000, I was using Office 97 and Windows 95 on a Pentium 133Mhz Olivetti laptop with with god knows how much RAM. What is it, that's so crucial, that Word 2007 can do today that I couldn't do in 2000 with Word 97?

Can you think of a single relatively common application (or task) that:
- exists today
- didn't exist in 2000
- requires that amount of RAM ?

I can't. Please, don't reply "games".

I've never filled the 2GB in my laptop in 2 years. So memory freedom is something I had never thought about.

The questions that arose from that comment are:
- why can't OS makers make smart OSes? Remember that 32 bit versions of Windows up to Vista were limited to 3GB? 32-bit Mac OS X 10.5 managed more than that. Obviously, there was a problem with Windows. My RAID controller and the Intel Turbo Memory are mutually exclusive. There's no explanation nowhere and I just have to deal with it.
- what's the proportion of 32-bit XP, Vista, Windows 7 compared to their 64-bit counterparts? Is it so unbalanced in favor of 64-bit that the viability of 32-bit in the coming 5 years is questionable?
- is RAM the reason for a 64-bit architecture? I thought it was twofold: speed of data transfers to memory and between registers, and width of computations.

... and in some time, hardware will cease to support 32bit architecture.

There's no way this will ever happen. As far as I know, all x86 still support using 8-bit registers in instructions and memory I/O. Same for 16-bit. Unless OS and CPU makers agree to get rid of the sacro-saint backwards-compatibility paradigm, thereby forcing it upon compiler and IDE actors, unless there's a radical shift and "legacy" becomes a banned word, this will not happen.

Furthermore, there's technically no justification to not supporting 32-bit on a 64-bit architecture. Computation-wise, you just dismiss the higher bits; same thing when reading from memory: read 64, use 32. But writing to memory would require reading 64 (or, in the worst case, 128 bits, with alignment considerations) first before changing only 32 and writing back all bits. That's what happens when changing overwriting 1 byte in a binary file: the whole sector (or cluster) is read before being written back.

Of course, software makers will get either lazy or greedy, come up with an excuse saying that 32-bit support is slowing things down (as if speed ever worried them) and we'll have to move on to something supposedly faster only to realize that we should have remained where we were (from my personal experience when I moved from 10.5.8 to Snow Leopard).Fri, 21 May 2010 21:08:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (vodoomoth)CommentsRE: Please, be fair and open.http://www.osnews.com/thread?426008
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426008

Linux will (forever) do exactly what you want it to do only if you quit its GUI and type a 300+ chars commandline by heart in a shell.

There are systems that even if you want/can/like to type 300+ characters in command line, it won't do what you want.Fri, 21 May 2010 21:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dbolgheroni)CommentsRE[3]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426010
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426010Using the word "retarded" is just as unacceptable as calling someone a "nigger". First of all, it's an old term one would never think to apply to someone with an intellectual disability. Secondly, to use it as a synonym for "stupid" is just as wrong. Is it okay to call somebody a "fag" if you think they're acting silly? I doubt anyone of intelligence would agree (I could say "anyone over 20", but agism is just as offensive). I know several people with intellectual disablities, more than one of whom both use computers, and are quite aware of what an OS is. Don't fool yourself into thinking you're a mensa candidate because you know something your friends and family don't. And please don't rebut a response to an offensive comment by being even more offensive than the original post.

In short: Fuck you! ;-)

DickMacInnis.comFri, 21 May 2010 21:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (macinnisrr)CommentsRE[3]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426013
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426013Okay, let me put it that way and then stop here, it's obviously useless, extremely OT and a shame above all. My point in this is:

It's not about how _THEY_ feel if we call them "retarded"... it's rather about how _WE_ feel about ourselves when we call them "retarded"... if you know what I mean... but I guess, not.Fri, 21 May 2010 21:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (warpcafe)CommentsBe Fair, Licensing Costs Probably Force A Higher Pricehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426017
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426017Please remember that OS/2 was a "joint" program between IBM and Microsoft back in the day. Later IBM chose to "go it alone" after Microsoft's success with Windows.

That being said, I'm rather pleased that there is a "Home/Student" version and reduction in price for this type of license as there's a real gap in the market for those interested in running DOS applications, whether it's legacy DOS games, applications that have never been ported to other platforms, and other reasons.

While FreeDOS is an excellent free alternative, I'm excited that there's a more robust DOS platform available. And yes Linux is free, but I've tried a variety of different DOS emulation tools, etc. and there is too much effort involved to get certain programs to work, or worse, a DOS application that requires network/TCP/IP access.

My hope is eComStation will meet these needs, and I guess I'm kinda a legacy geek anyway, the first program I want to try on it is GeoWorks (AKA NewDeal Office and now Breadbox Ensemble)!

I've been successful in getting GeoWorks/Breadbox to work in DOSBox but a huge negative is no networking support so you can't browse the web, use email, etc.

As for price $149 is rather steep granted, but much better than the $250 or so previously. On the other hand a new version of Windows costs between $99.00 and $150.00 (or more), a new version of DOS back in the day (which you can't even buy anymore from IBM, Novell, DR or Microsoft) cost $60.00 to $65.00 new back in the day so at $149.00 I'll be placing my order.

Guess it's all in your perspective.Fri, 21 May 2010 22:23:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (mjhi11)CommentsRE[4]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426025
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426025I assume the suffocating hypocrisy that is telling others to "f--k off" because they used what you consider a politically incorrect term, must have been lost in your rush to make up all those false analogies for that self righteous rant.

Wether the correctness of the term "retard" is questionable, there is no such debate for "f--k off."

If you are going to be ever so "concerned" about propriety, at least try to even pretend to be consistent.Edited 2010-05-22 00:38 UTCSat, 22 May 2010 00:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (tylerdurden)CommentsAn open-source OS/2 clonehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426028
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426028Although I haven't tried this (or eComStation or OS/2 for that matter), I've kept tabs on this project for a long time, and it seems to be going well. It's Voyager - an open-source OS/2-like OS.

The FAQ does mention that they haven't decided which kernel to use yet. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how the project goes in the next few years.

The blogsite above even mentions QT4, so that looks like it has been ported.Edited 2010-05-22 01:36 UTCSat, 22 May 2010 01:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (obsidian)CommentsRE[4]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426040
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426040Why don't you get your panties out of a bunch and loosen up? Calling someone a retard is not like using the N-word. Look the terms up in a dictionary. If I have to explain that further, you are...well...retarded. Take your PC crap and (fill in the blank).Sat, 22 May 2010 04:30:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dnstest)CommentsExcitement lies in the eye of the beholderhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426056
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426056

It is a 90'ies operating system with driver updates to bring it into the 21st century crouching on its knees.

What makes you think so?

even in the 2000-2001 timeframe when I played with it, it was quite instable, ugly, and outdated.

Of course, as you only "played with it".

The competition for this system was Windows 95, and those days are long gone.

W95 never was a competition for Warp. You just didn't look under the hood.
One thing is for sure: OS/2 (eCS) is not for the superficial user. Like a bike is not for the casual car owner. It needs some affection.Sat, 22 May 2010 13:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (frajo)Commentsfactfindinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426057
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426057

the fact that the OS is perhaps neither the prettiest

How can prettiness be a fact?Sat, 22 May 2010 13:43:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (frajo)CommentsRE: Be Fair, Licensing Costs Probably Force A Higher Pricehttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426058
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426058Oh, and another plus (at least in my book) is they sell through resellers and thus these resellers have costs associated with the transaction and the need to make at least a small profit.

As a 20 year VAR myself (but never for eComStation or OS/2) I can appreciate the fact that Serenity Systems hasn't been tempted to "sell direct" as so many other companies choose to do after their VARs work tirelessly to introduce a new, unknown product to their customers, market that software, take the risk of staffing up sales and technical support staff to support the product and growing market share, only to have the software company "go direct" and cut out their VARs.

As an OS/2 fan, some of the VARs listed on their Buy page have been involved in OS/2 since the beginning. A testament to these companies and a testament to Serenity Systems for continuing to sell through VARs.

And for those who think VARs are getting rich, most margins on software these days are around 20% to 30% but when you figure in credit card transaction fees around 3%, internal shipping and inventory costs, sales commissions and back office overhead, etc. if a VAR makes 10% on a sale they're doing well. In comparison there's on average a 50% markup on most goods you consume and purchase such as clothing, restaurant meals, food, etc.Edited 2010-05-22 13:56 UTCSat, 22 May 2010 13:52:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (mjhi11)CommentsTCO somebody?http://www.osnews.com/thread?426059
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426059

I think I'm just missing the "awesome" in this thing.

Is your car awesome?

What can this 1990s time machine do for a "home and student" user, that Linux can't do for free?

It prints 10 times faster than any linux distri. It runs firefox 10 times faster than any linux distri. It has a faster graphics editor (pmview). It runs linux software while linux doesn't run OS/2 software.

Or better yet, Windows 7 that costs around the same amount?

Has TCO a meaning for you?Sat, 22 May 2010 13:56:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (frajo)CommentsRE[2]: Comment by Krochttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426061
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426061True, neither Windows nor Linux ship with a true object-oriented desktop, nor do they in any other way match the functionality of WPS.

It has an old look, but apart from that it is light years ahead in many aspects, and lacks behind in other aspects (e.g. OS/2 was single-user and not multi-user).

Considering the price of Windows 7 Home Premium Uber Under Pick-a-Version-You-Cannot-Possibly-Know-Is-What-You-Need is thrice that of eCS 2.0 I'd still call eCS 2.0 a good buy - if you know what you're doing. You obviously don't...Sat, 22 May 2010 15:03:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones)CommentsRE[2]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426062
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426062Ever tried using OS/2 for anything serious? Doesn't sound like it. But as usual you will flame anything not branded Microsoft (C) ... *sigh*Sat, 22 May 2010 15:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones)CommentsI too wish it was around $50 but ...http://www.osnews.com/thread?426063
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426063I too wish it was around $50 but like someone has already stated, IBM and Microsoft own rights to licensing so Serenity has to pay them too, not just themselves.

There is also the fact that the full version (unlimited installs) comes with a year of phone support and the home/student version, which you can install on up to 5 computers, comes with six months of phone support.

So exactly how many computers can you legally install Windows on? What was that? One. ONE!? Just one? And you paid HOW MUCH for Windows? Suckers. Next time buy a less expensive OS.

And what was that? How long of phone support do you get with Windows? What was that? You have to pay a per call rate for each incident you call them about? What was that? Their phone support sucks? Hey, I've been there. I support Windows computers at work at an org with over 10,000 employees. I know what Microsoft "support" is like.

As for what OS/2 is like and what it can do. Yes it is very industrial and not in a good way. But what you can do with it is truly amazing. Just because it doesn't run what you want, or think you want, isn't any criteria for whether it is any good or not.

I would compare OS/2 and Windows to semi trucks and cars. Where a car engine is lucky, extremely lucky, to make 200,000 miles, it is more common for semi truck engines to rack up over 2 million miles.

When you absolutely need an OS that will be up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 Â¼ days a year. Windows is NOT the answer for that. OS/2 is one of the answers. And it is far less expensive than the other OSs that do run year after year after year without having to be rebooted because of internal limitations.

There is a reason you need all those Windows servers. Because they FAIL and the leading cause isn't hardware. By fail I mean that for whatever reason it is that you have to reboot, that is a failure for that computer to stay up.

By if I have X number of Windows computers it doesn't matter.

How about cash machines. When was the last time you saw an OS/2 cash machine crash due to software issues. My guess is never. And guess what, OS/2 runs in more cash machines in the world than Windows. Their failures are receipt jams and things like that. I know, my wife used to repair them. Windows cash machines? Their biggest point of failure is â¦ Windows.

So when you need reliability where you need to absolutely count on the computer staying up with zero reboots, well, which would you bet your whole life net worth on? I certainly wouldn't put it on Windows.Sat, 22 May 2010 15:47:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Sabon)CommentsRE[4]: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426064
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426064I am not a typical user. I am a power user. As such, there are several applications i use that consume a large amount of memory.

Eclipse
Virtual machines ( yes I typically run two or three vms at once )
Gimp
Inkscape
open office
firefox
chromium
opera
Kontact

I actually do know how well that workload works on a 2000 era computer: Not good. You can do the same things but you have to close one app to open another. It takes longer. I'd also have to have separate physical machines to replace the virtual machines.

Win 32 bit didn't support the PAX extensions that allow you to use more than ~3 GB. Mac/linux/ win32bit servers did. It used that as a product differentiator to get people to pay for server OSes. however it would limit each process to ~3gb. Making it unsuitable for really memory intensive apps ( databases and the like).

There have been 64 bit architectures that don't have a 32 bit version. Like Itanium. Though yo could really point to that lack of legacy support as a reason for its relative failure to meet its expectations.

Ram isn't the only reason for the change to x86_64. There are a lot of other changes in the instruction set that make it a better choice. I'm not an expert on them, but I know they exist. But those are specific to one implementation of 32 vs 4 bit that would not pertain to other instruction sets like POWER.Sat, 22 May 2010 15:50:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul)CommentsRE[3]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426068
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426068What do you mean by using OS/2 for something serious? I helped implement a finite capacity scheduling system called Provisa for a reasonably large site using the OS/2 platform (2.11 through to 4.0) linked to an AS/400 based ERP system called Movex. I suppose that could be regarded as being 'serious'Sat, 22 May 2010 16:32:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (robbiec)CommentsRE[4]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426070
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426070Indeed. And I replied to the post from nt_jerkface (fitting name).

But I have moved on - three years ago I removed eCS on both my desktop-computer, server and laptop and replaced it with openSUSE.

It took a couple of days getting the WiFi working (It took about 15 mins with eCS and worked perfectly) on my Broadcom nick on laptop - well with openSUSE it was only able to connect if the signal was strong - it first became stable with the following version of the OS. Now it also works perfectly, but it took a while.

I still recall a small tool that made the windows on my OS/2 3.0 explode into small pieces, when closed - glorious - actually it brought just as much happyness and productivity to my everyday work as all of the animations, wobbely windows and transparancy of KDE4.

For years I missed the PM/WPS but now has gotten used to KDE4 - and here I stay.Sat, 22 May 2010 17:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (flywheel)CommentsRE[3]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426073
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426073Actually I ran a BBS on it for a short time when I was a kid but decided that it wasn't worth using over DESQview due to the high RAM requirement.

Any more assumptions you would like to make about me? Should I detail my experience with Linux, FreeBSD and OpenBSD as well?Sat, 22 May 2010 19:16:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface)Commentsnot option for curiosityhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426075
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426075I'm really exited about eCS 2 release, good news for diversity. Anyway not possibility to try it. Sad not be a option to just use for curiosity.Sat, 22 May 2010 19:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (ventejuy)CommentsRE: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426077
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426077

I think I'm just missing the "awesome" in this thing. 149$ for "home and student"? Are they kidding? What can this 1990s time machine do for a "home and student" user, that Linux can't do for free? Or better yet, Windows 7 that costs around the same amount?

Nothing, lot of people seem to glorify OS/2 and it was rahter okey before XP came. But still it was rather easily crashing(since most programs were large and complex for business), slow fat pig on back thens machines and nowhere suited for Internet as we known it today. I personally don't understand which company would use it either since most companies that had OS/2 were huge govermental organizations with pile of money to burn(like Greeks) and now they are supported by very tiny company. Doesn't look good.Sat, 22 May 2010 19:57:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Karitku)CommentsRE[4]: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426079
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426079

That's what I was saying in my previous comment: we've just settled for what's been given to us as some sort of OS gospel dyed with consumerism. Does anyone recall what was the standard laptop RAM size in 2000? I'm really interested into knowing. I have memories of my father using a word processor on an Amstrad CPC6128 in the late 80s. In 2000, I was using Office 97 and Windows 95 on a Pentium 133Mhz Olivetti laptop with with god knows how much RAM.

My laptop bought in 2000 had 128MB RAM for Windows 98, if that is any indication.

What is it, that's so crucial, that Word 2007 can do today that I couldn't do in 2000 with Word 97?

Oh please.

Can you think of a single relatively common application (or task) that:
- exists today
- didn't exist in 2000
- requires that amount of RAM ?

I can't. Please, don't reply "games".

I am sure you could do most of the stuff we use computers for back in 2000, BUT user expectations have changed. It feels sad when you try using an OS from back then and run into something that it can absolutely not do -- even if it is as simple as handling a modern file format.

That is why keeping an old OS up-to-date with recent versions of the apps is very welcome, you get a mean and lean OS which responds to (most) user expectations.

I've never filled the 2GB in my laptop in 2 years. So memory freedom is something I had never thought about.

A general trend is that the more recent the application, the more memory hungry it is. So if you want a good user experience (by today's standards) you better have enough RAM available. That said, I agree that 2GB is still quite comfortable (depending on OS).

The questions that arose from that comment are:
- why can't OS makers make smart OSes? Remember that 32 bit versions of Windows up to Vista were limited to 3GB? 32-bit Mac OS X 10.5 managed more than that. Obviously, there was a problem with Windows. My RAID controller and the Intel Turbo Memory are mutually exclusive. There's no explanation nowhere and I just have to deal with it.

Actually the consumer version of Windows was limited to 2GB and the pro version to 3GB if I remember well. The former was an arbitrary limitation added by Microsoft, which didn't exist in MacOS X and Linux.
However there was a hardware 3GB limitation in a number of computers, notably laptops-- you could add more RAM but only ~3GB were addressable.

- what's the proportion of 32-bit XP, Vista, Windows 7 compared to their 64-bit counterparts? Is it so unbalanced in favor of 64-bit that the viability of 32-bit in the coming 5 years is questionable?
- is RAM the reason for a 64-bit architecture? I thought it was twofold: speed of data transfers to memory and between registers, and width of computations.

The speed of data transfers to memory depends on the width of the bus. You could have a 64 bit bus on a 32 bit architecture.
On the Intel architecture a significant benefit of 64 bit is the increase in the number of registers, which reduces the need to hit the caches. A 32 bit OS cannot benefit from it.Sat, 22 May 2010 20:51:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (jido)CommentsRE[4]: Hmmhttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426080
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426080One thing Office 2007 can do that office 97 can't is to interface with Microsoft's latest proprietary formats, which are the default used in each office release.

You're better off paying a psychiatrist $150 so he can help you with your denial issues.

No, i'm not.Sat, 22 May 2010 21:25:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (renhoek)CommentsRE[4]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426082
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426082If you don't like the assumptions, take a look at your behaviour.

And by all means detail your experience. It is always a pleasant surprise to see misbehaving people having actual qualifications Sat, 22 May 2010 21:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dylansmrjones)CommentsRE[5]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426098
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426098Oh how was I misbehaving there mommy? Because I think running Ecomstation is pointless unless it is for legacy software? Linux has better driver and application support and costs $0 so I am really not seeing the point.

I don't even consider Ecomstation to be OS/2, to me OS/2 was buried long ago and this is some bastard offspring. It's too bad that IBM bungled OS/2 because they at least could have continued its development as a server OS. But IBM is ran by chicksh|t beancounters who are scared of Microsoft which is why they dumped it so quickly.

I usually don't recommend Linux on the desktop but this is one of those cases where yes you are better off running Linux.Sat, 22 May 2010 23:46:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (nt_jerkface)CommentsRE[6]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426116
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426116Doubt very much you're misbehaving but would believe that maybe you're misinformed. As I've said before, OS/2 is renowned for its reliability once setup correctly. The problem being setting it it up with its lack of driver support. This is a major issue. Not so much with basic functions such as ACPI or SATA support but more in the graphics and network driver arena. It's a failing yes, to be sure but not one that should rule out an OS that has proven reliability and also has an UI that still has features yet to be matched by current compatative OS's. Those that have used and grown to understand OS/2 are still confused by the lack of support, the lack of continuation, and basically the lack of an OS with equivalent feature set. No more to be said really, there is (was) as OS that was available that is (was) superior in many areas to current offerings but is slowly dying due to lack of support. I for one will not stop supporting it.
S!Sun, 23 May 2010 03:49:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (robbiec)CommentsRE: This would be more exciting...http://www.osnews.com/thread?426117
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426117I'm just curious as to what benefits eComStation will bring me.

What are it's strengths over Ubuntu or Fedora?Sun, 23 May 2010 03:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (dayalsoap)CommentsRE[7]: Comment by robbiechttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426119
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426119

Doubt very much you're misbehaving but would believe that maybe you're misinformed.

Oh am I? How exactly?

It's a failing yes, to be sure but not one that should rule out an OS that has proven reliability and also has an UI that still has features yet to be matched by current compatative OS's.

It's well established that Windows Server 2008, Linux and FreeBSD are all capable of 99.99% uptime.

I see no reason to believe that Ecomstation is any more reliable than a standard Linux distro.

Your switch to openSUSE would have been in 2007....about two years after IBM stopped marketing OS/2 (December 2005). Two years is an eternity with respect to the hardware cycle and it becomes almost impossible to catch-up with respect to available of drivers - notably the display ones required for the eye candies we have now become used to.

With respect to missing PM/WPS, keep an eye on the progress of the Voyager project.....its aim is essentially to graft the PM/WPS personality on a kernel (likely the Linux kernel). This may become quite interesting once actual executable code starts circulating in the community.Sun, 23 May 2010 13:09:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BlueofRainbow)CommentsWhat would make it more interestinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426166
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426166A large number of comments have been with respect to the pricing of eCS 2.0GA licenses and whether its realistic for savoring a refreshed nostalgia.

For those desiring to experience OS/2 Warp in a nostalgic way for free, the "Just Add OS/2 Warp" distribution is still available on the web. This is a 3.3 Mb distribution (microscopic by today's 700-4,500 Mb LiveCD Linux based distributions).

This was originally designed to perform a minimal install on a DOS, Win 3.x, or Win 95 system while not altering the system more than adding a folder and initiator command. In principles, although I have not tried this personally, it should be possible to do this within a DOS, Win 3.x or Win 95 virtual machine.

Personally, I would like to try eCS 2.0GA before putting out any money for it and I'm eagerly awaiting the availability of a 2.0GA LiveCD for such purpose. I experimented with the 1.2 LiveCD and I liked it although not enough to go for the full version while 2.0 was already in its alpha/beta cycle.

One aspect I like about the license pricing for eCS 2.0GA is that the only two differences between the "Home and Student" and "Business' levels are the extend of support (6 vs. 12 months) and the number of concurrent installs (5 vs. unlimited). This is refreshingly simple compared to the recent Windows license pricing schemes for which some features are only available in the "Ultimate" (and most expensive) version.

Also, the $150 for the "Home and Student" is at par with the Apple "Family Pack" license scheme for OS X, iLife and iWork.

My personal dilema is that I don't yet see installing eCS (or even a free Linux distribution) on all the computers currently in house in my household.

Now, if there was a $25 bootable LiveCD (LiveDVD) with the capability of saving the session back on the medium like it already exists with PuppyLinux, then I would certainly get one.....the non-installable nature would likely be a plus too (the last thing I need is an OS War at home!).Sun, 23 May 2010 13:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (BlueofRainbow)CommentsRE: factfindinghttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426185
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426185

"the fact that the OS is perhaps neither the prettiest

How can prettiness be a fact? "

Relax, I was actually defending eCS. As my point clearly states, I said 'perhaps not the prettiest', implying subjectivity. After which I went on to explain what it did offer, namely stability and continuity.

An OS really is not something you should get quite so worked up about. I like eCS. I don't find that it offers anything compelling for me now though, as none of my clients use it any longer. That's really not a criticism of the platform by any stretch of the imagination.

Relax, I was actually defending eCS. As my point clearly states, I said 'perhaps not the prettiest', implying subjectivity. [/q]

Ok, I didn't understand this subtlety. I usually associate "fact" with objectivity.
And, I don't mind the diversity of preferences.Edited 2010-05-23 16:17 UTCSun, 23 May 2010 16:15:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (frajo)CommentsOS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426202
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426202Sure, OS/2 is renowned for it's stability once correctly setup. But, you have to remember that OS/2 are not used in large demanding servers of today, like running an entire stock exchange or something similar. Instead, OS/2 are running small apps.

It is not difficult to run small apps and get good uptime. The problem is running large server apps with huge demands and fail over and all that stuff - with good uptime. That is the problem. And, OS/2 does not cut it, then. It is good for small tasks like, a cash machine, or, a calculator.

But it is not correct to believe it suffices for extreme demanding tasks. I mean, 32bit CPU with maximum 4GB RAM for extremely large servers? It is ridiculous. OS/2 will never play in the big league with the big boys.Sun, 23 May 2010 18:35:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426239
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426239Ah, for those whiners about price and others about big things, eCS 2.0 seems to be tested on an 16 kernel machine right out of the box. It will support up to 64 kernels....if they manage to build the mobo for it. If this isn't serious what is? Own experience, 300 files concurrent open and processing is not a problem and done in a blink of an eye. Never thought I could change a website that fast. Oh yeah, you can throw about everything on it and it will run if you provide right drivers. It will run seamless right out of the box OS/2, DOS, Windows 3.1, X-Windows (with media pack) and there are several virtual systems available, with the right libraries it will run Windows 32 bit, Linux ports, Atari stuff and some others too. Right out of the box your stealth on the net. Wrong programs will be shut down and terminated automaticly. My system today is installed on 19-07-2004 and never went down. Compare this with Windows or Linux, I like to work with my computer, not to install the OS again and again as with Windows or have to update it. The price is a bargain compared with Windows. With eCS you get the full system, for a full Windows system you have to pay USD 395.79, that's much more. And you may use Windows on one system, not five as with eCS.Edited 2010-05-24 00:41 UTCMon, 24 May 2010 00:29:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Joop)CommentsRE[2]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426250
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426250

for a full Windows system you have to pay USD 395.79, that's much more.

Wow, I don't typically defend Windows, but where are you getting your Windows licenses from? $395 USD? Even 7 Ultimate doesn't cost *that* much, OEM copies of 7 Ultimate can be had for $170 USD. If you're paying $395 for a Windows license, someone is seriously ripping you off.Mon, 24 May 2010 03:36:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (darknexus)CommentsRE[2]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426264
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426264As I said, OS/2 is good for small things. It is an unproven os.

So, for instance, how good is OS/2 clustering solutions? How many stock exchanges run OS/2, not exceeding 4GB RAM? Come on.

I mean, I can get good uptime on a Win95 machine if it doesnt do anything. Does it prove that Win95 has good stability and is an enterprise os, appropriate to run a stock exchange on it? Hell no. You can get good uptime on any os, if you do not stress it.

The problem is when you stress the OS, with large demanding applications. Then many OSes crumble and only the Enterprise OSes can handle that load.

Another thing, typically, those large demanding applications use more than 4GB RAM. OS/2 is an unproven OS, more appropriate for toy things, less demanding things.

If OS/2 was 64 bits, and had good clustering solutions and it had a proven track record of running large demanding server applications using more than 0.5GB RAM, then I am willing to reconsider.Mon, 24 May 2010 09:37:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE[3]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426265
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426265True - but technically, according to the agreement of the OEM license...

You can't transfer it to another machine.

So the OEM isn't (according to Microsoft) a "full copy".

Yes, I know there's nothing to stop you from doing that, but I thought it was worth pointing it out.

And you still only get one license for that $170.Mon, 24 May 2010 09:41:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Brett Legree)CommentsRE[3]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426266
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426266"OS/2 is an unproven OS"

Umm, I thought a lot of ATM's / bank machines were powered by OS/2 reliably up until a few years ago. And I thought a lot of banks used to use it as well.

Haven't there been a lot more security problems with bank machines and banks in general since they switched from OS/2 to Windows?

"for a full Windows system you have to pay USD 395.79, that's much more.

Wow, I don't typically defend Windows, but where are you getting your Windows licenses from? $395 USD? Even 7 Ultimate doesn't cost *that* much, OEM copies of 7 Ultimate can be had for $170 USD. If you're paying $395 for a Windows license, someone is seriously ripping you off. "
That's the price we have to pay in Holland for a full copy. We are punished because someone in European Parliament is against the practices from Microsoft. Its says something about Microsoft.Mon, 24 May 2010 14:27:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Joop)CommentsRE[3]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426307
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426307Kebabbert - I really wish people like you would actually do some fact checking before you post things. It shows that you don't know anything about the subject. In this case, OS/2.Mon, 24 May 2010 14:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Sabon)CommentsRE[3]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426312
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426312

If OS/2 was 64 bits, and had good clustering solutions and it had a proven track record of running large demanding server applications using more than 0.5GB RAM, then I am willing to reconsider.

OS/2 Warp Server can use at least 4 clusters of 64 CPUs for a total of 256 CPUs. Seems you don't know anything about the memory model of OS/2 and your still thinking in Windows terms. Once I ran out of memory, no free memory left on the mobo, no free memory on the disks (3!) and after that I got the polite request to put in a fresh harddisk for going on or to terminate the process. With what other OS do you get such a question instead of a black of blue screen and a system which is halted?Mon, 24 May 2010 15:11:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Joop)CommentsRE[4]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426326
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426326"Once I ran out of memory, no free memory left on the mobo, no free memory on the disks (3!) and after that I got the polite request to put in a fresh harddisk for going on or to terminate the process."

Very cool. I used to manage several different brands of networks including OS/2 Servers. Fortunately or unfortunately I never got to see this message.Mon, 24 May 2010 17:48:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Sabon)CommentsRE[4]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426330
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426330Dick-Mac-In-Is

Figures. On all levels.Mon, 24 May 2010 18:32:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (fanboi_fanboi)CommentsRE[4]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426401
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426401I suggest you read my post again. OS/2 is unproven for large demanding server apps, like running a stock exchange or similar which uses huge amount of RAM and so on.

An ATM machine is _not_ a large demanding server app. It is chicken shit. It accesses a big server, which runs an Enterprise OS, not OS/2.Tue, 25 May 2010 09:12:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE[4]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426403
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426403Jesus. I am talking about GOOD clustering solutions. Just because OS/2 "can" run clusters, it does not mean it runs well.

And I do not have this window mentality. I work with large Enterprise OSes with extreme demands juggling billions of dollars each day.

OS/2 is unproven in this realm. Come on, 4GB of RAM? That is hilarious. Clustering solution? Yeah, how good is it? Are you joking? A good clustering solution is VERY difficult to do it right. 32 bit OSes will never enter my field of work. Come back when you know more.

OS/2 is a toy OS.Tue, 25 May 2010 09:17:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE[4]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426404
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426404Please enlighten me then. OpenVMS has reported uptimes of decades, running extreme large systems with extreme demands. The OpenVMS clustering technology is the best, rivaling Mainframes. And, OpenVMS can use more than 4GB RAM, which is a prerequisite for extremely large server systems in good clusters.

During 9/11 disaster twin tower, the OpenVMS clusters didnt loose any single transaction, they continued to run. OpenVMS is proven. OS/2 is unproven.

But maybe I am wrong? Maybe you can enlighten me? Which large systems with extreme demands are running OS/2 clusters today? ATM? Cash machines? Pocket Calculators?

This 4GB RAM limit, makes sure it will never enter the realm of large enterprise systems. Also, good clustering solutions is a prerequisite.Tue, 25 May 2010 09:22:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE[5]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426417
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426417I did read your post. Yes, you are correct, an ATM is not a large demanding server app.

I was responding to the part where you said "OS/2 is good for small things. It is an unproven os."

Just because you use something for "small things" does not make it "unproven". You seemed to be writing off the whole OS because you can't use a single machine running it to control NORAD HQ.

I would guess that ATM's are not considered "small things" to banks.

Perhaps you can't run the bank's entire network on one OS/2 machine (and likely you could not), but then again it would probably be stupid to trust something like that to one of anything, right?Tue, 25 May 2010 10:33:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Brett Legree)CommentsRE[6]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426427
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426427

Just because you use something for "small things" does not make it "unproven". You seemed to be writing off the whole OS because you can't use a single machine running it to control NORAD HQ.

But I am writing it off, in Enterprise server environments. OS/2 may be good for desktop and small things, but for large servers - hell no as it is unproven.

I would guess that ATM's are not considered "small things" to banks.

Heh, but they are small things. An ATM is nothing more than an complicated calculator with some I/O.

A large server running for instance, a big stock exchange with thousands of users connected, is a different thing. This is extremely difficult to do well. Very very complex and finely tuned. Change one small thing, and everything may break.

You can not compare those two. One is a client (ATM) the other is a big server distributed on many large servers.

Perhaps you can't run the bank's entire network on one OS/2 machine (and likely you could not), but then again it would probably be stupid to trust something like that to one of anything, right?

Yes. Perhaps, or perhaps not. We dont know. It is unproven, yes?Tue, 25 May 2010 13:09:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE[7]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426434
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426434I agree with you - it is unproven for enterprise servers, I don't think we are arguing that.

Just as an enterprise server OS is unproven as a bank machine OS.

An ATM is physically a small thing, yes. Perhaps just a complicated calculator.

But I was not referring to physical size, I was referring to *importance* to the business itself. ATM's are quite important to the banking business, regardless of physical size.

For the average person, a bank provides a service - reliable service is "where the rubber hits the road" when we speak of personal banking via ATM's.

OS/2 was an extremely reliable platform for the ATM's. I have noticed a decline in reliability since the banks where I live switched away from it to a Microsoft product.

Crashed machines, longer access times to get to my money or banking information, and so forth.

That was really my point, that OS/2 and eComStation shouldn't be written off as not having any use just because they don't fit your own personal application and experience.

(Now, is OS/2 the best choice today for an ATM operating system? Not sure. Perhaps some kind of Linux, or BSD might be better. Certainly cheaper!)Tue, 25 May 2010 14:13:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Brett Legree)Commentsoverpriced for home usershttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426451
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426451Oh come on guyz of eComstation.. the home/student price should be $50... the price you offer it is more expensive as windows 7 !!

Couldn't be nice to see more hobbyists to involve with it?Tue, 25 May 2010 15:40:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (csynt)CommentsRE[8]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426465
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426465I dont doubt that OS/2 is very stable. Actually, I have heard rumours of it's stability. But, just because it is stable in small settings means nothing when we scale up to large servers. Maybe OS/2 would cut it even for large servers, I dont know. I am only saying it is unproven in that domain, and you should not automatically assume OS/2 will do for large server apps.

I see this all the time, people see that Linux is stable on their desktop and think Linux is the most stable OS out there, which is quite far from the truth.

Desktop is one thing, servers are a totally different thing. Dont mix them up. To scale well is very difficult and you face new problems that dont show when you do it on a small scale.Tue, 25 May 2010 17:04:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Kebabbert)CommentsRE[9]: OS/2 stability???http://www.osnews.com/thread?426496
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426496Agreed Tue, 25 May 2010 18:39:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (Brett Legree)CommentsRE[2]: next up Commodore Basichttp://www.osnews.com/thread?426547
http://www.osnews.com/thread?426547

Are you from the US?

What's worse?
1) Generalizing the population of an entire country (cultural bias, stereotype, etc.)
2) Calling someone "retarted", even though it was obviously not meant as a jab at the mentally challenged (political incorrectness)

Certain words in the English language have had their meanings altered to the point that their original meaning is hardly ever taken into consideration when commonly used. While the word "retarted" may have been in poor taste, its use in that context was in no way meant to insult the mentally challenged. Intent is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.
Political correctness is a gigantic load of bullshit, and claiming that the use of "retarted" nullifies any arguments made, regardless of actual merit, is insane.
Making a sweeping generalization of a culture/population is a huge mistake if you want the rest of your argument to be taken seriously. Whoops!Tue, 25 May 2010 21:59:00 GMTdonotreply@osnews.com (callinyouin)Comments